Motions to stay proceedings during an appeal are governed by Rule 62, CSSC Rules of Civil Procedure, which is near identical to the corresponding rule of the FSM Supreme Court and the Federal rules of the United States. The criteria for granting a motion to stay pending appeal are the same as for equity jurisdiction for the granting of an injunction. Pius v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 8 FSM Intrm. 570, 571 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1998).

Appeal
and Certiorari ) Stay; Elections

No stay in an election appeal will be granted when nothing in the record of the case indicates that appellant will suffer irreparable harm and, also, that he will likely prevail on the merits of the appeal and when granting a stay would have a substantial effect on the municipal employees and other public officials who have held office for almost a year and would not be in the public interest of having an efficient and effective municipal government. Pius v. Chuuk State Election Comm'n, 8 FSM Intrm. 570, 571 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1998).

[8 FSM Intrm. 571]

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

SOUKICHI FRITZ, Chief Justice:

This case comes before the Court on motion of the Appellant to Stay the Execution of the Decision of the Chuuk State Election Commission from which this appeal is taken. Motions to stay proceedings during an appeal are governed by Rule 62, CSSC Rules of Civil Procedure, which is near identical to the corresponding rule of the FSM Supreme Court and the Federal rules of the United States.

The criteria for granting a motion to stay pending appeal are the same as for equity jurisdiction for the granting of an injunction and are set out in Ponape Enterprises Co. v. Luzama, 6 FSM Intrm. 274 (Pon. 1993). The Luzama case is based on rulings of the US Supreme Court in the interpretation of Rule 62 and these rulings have been consistently followed by this Court.

The second and third item in the criteria for the granting of a stay by the Court in this case are the most troubling. The second criteria concerns "whether issuance of the stay would substantially harm other parties interested in the proceedings" and the third looks at whether the "public interest would be served by granting the stay."

The decision of the Election Commission appealed from places the Appellee Sandus Suda in the Office of Mayor of Wonei Municipality. To grant the Appellant's Motion to Stay this decision of the Election Commission would remove Mr. Suda from that office.

Voting in the election complained of occurred on July 31, 1997. A Notice of Appeal from the actions and non-actions of the Election Commission was filed in this court on August 27, 1997. The Motion to Stay was not filed by the Appellant until January 12, 1998, some six months after the events of which he complains. At this point, Mr. Suda has held the office of Mayor of Wonei for almost one full year. The Court finds nothing in the record of the case that indicates that Appellant will suffer irreparable harm and, also, that he will likely prevail on the merits of the appeal.

Clearly, the granting of the Motion to Stay would have a substantial effect on the employees and other public officials of Wonei Municipality and would not be in the "public interest" of having an efficient and effective municipal government. For these reasons, the Motion for a Stay of Execution is due to be denied.